Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:07:05 +1100
From:      Andrew Reilly <areilly@bigpond.net.au>
To:        David N <davidn04@gmail.com>
Cc:        freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: On gjournal vs unexpected shutdown (-->fsck)
Message-ID:  <20091217030705.GA20153@duncan.reilly.home>
In-Reply-To: <4d7dd86f0912161725m6278c843xba275038c6a80d59@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <20091208224710.GA97620@duncan.reilly.home> <228D9370-4967-4C47-9746-8475DCD4FA27@hmallett.co.uk> <20091215221727.GA8137@duncan.reilly.home> <4d7dd86f0912161725m6278c843xba275038c6a80d59@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:25:00PM +1100, David N wrote:
> 2009/12/16 Andrew Reilly <areilly@bigpond.net.au>:
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 09:49:56PM +0000, Hywel Mallett wrote:
> >>
> >> On 8 Dec 2009, at 22:47, Andrew Reilly wrote:
> Do you have soft updates enabled?

No.

> can you show us a print out of
> 
> tunefs -p /dev/.....journal

Sure:  (I hadn't seen the -p option before: neat!)

duncan [202]$ tunefs -p /dev/ad10.journal 
tunefs: ACLs: (-a)                                         disabled
tunefs: MAC multilabel: (-l)                               disabled
tunefs: soft updates: (-n)                                 disabled
tunefs: gjournal: (-J)                                     enabled
tunefs: maximum blocks per file in a cylinder group: (-e)  2048
tunefs: average file size: (-f)                            16384
tunefs: average number of files in a directory: (-s)       64
tunefs: minimum percentage of free space: (-m)             8%
tunefs: optimization preference: (-o)                      time
tunefs: volume label: (-L)                                 

I have a suspicion that what happened was probably mostly a
misunderstanding on my part about how and when the journal
playback is initiated.  Memory is getting dim at this point: the
power outage that brought this issue up was a week or so ago.
It seems plausible that since my other (non-journalled) drives
were dirty too, I just ran fsck on everything.  I expected fsck
on the ad10.journal drive to just say "hey this is clean", but
it went and did a full, slow, check.  But that happens when
you run fsck on clean non-journalled drives too, I think, so
shouldn't have surprised me.

I guess the surprise is that the system claimed that the
journalled drive was dirty at all.  Maybe it didn't: it's hard
to remember now.  I'll have to pay more attention the next
time there's a power outage (something (not yet identified)
is tickling the earth leakage circuit every so often: very
annoying.)

Cheers,

-- 
Andrew



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20091217030705.GA20153>